The State of Sociology

Cannibal Ox

I was wondering what other people think about the state of sociology. I'm doing my masters at the moment and I'm starting to realize how many divisions there are within (academic?) sociology. From stuff like quants vs qual, objective vs subjective, class vs stratification, culture vs ideology, post moderns vs everybody, to questions about what sociology is, and what sociologists should be researching.

I think it's a strength in some ways, and a weakness in others. If I'd asked all of the lecturers I've had in sociology what sociology is, I'm pretty sure the answers would have been very different in some cases. A basic explanation being sociology is the study of societies. But then you have so many questions coming from that, what is society, how/what is it made up, how do you do research, are we supposed to be scientists or are we not? And the answers to those questions can vary so much within sociology that, for me, it all seems a bit directionless at times.

Is being involved in sociology a matter of picking a position and sticking to it within sociology? i.e, I'm a quantitative based researcher who uses little or no theory. I'm a qualitative researcher who uses theory to help explain my research. I'm a theory driven researcher who analyses discursive power relations. And if it is a matter of picking a position, won't sociology become/is a subject with many, many internal divisions? And, if it is going to be divided, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

biko

I have a masters in Sociology and Psychology and tbh, both subjects are vast and contain many many specialised fields.
They meet in social psychology, where I did most of my training.

I think many that start in Soc soon discovers that it's not as sexy as it's made out to be initially I moved within 2 years from the philosophical discussions of gender wars and class struggle to statistics, upon which all/some sociological knowledge is derived.

Now I work in computers but still have use of my training as I dabble in HCI (Human Computer Interaction) and usability.

As to answer your question "Is being involved in sociology a matter of picking a position and sticking to it within sociology" I think that if you are stuck in a university then yes, you'll be pigeon-holed. Try get a course with another school of thought?

Ostrom

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I was wondering what other people think about the state of sociology. I'm doing my masters at the moment and I'm starting to realize how many divisions there are within (academic?) sociology. From stuff like quants vs qual, objective vs subjective, class vs stratification, culture vs ideology, post moderns vs everybody, to questions about what sociology is, and what sociologists should be researching.

I think it's a strength in some ways, and a weakness in others. If I'd asked all of the lecturers I've had in sociology what sociology is, I'm pretty sure the answers would have been very different in some cases. A basic explanation being sociology is the study of societies. But then you have so many questions coming from that, what is society, how/what is it made up, how do you do research, are we supposed to be scientists or are we not? And the answers to those questions can vary so much within sociology that, for me, it all seems a bit directionless at times.

Is being involved in sociology a matter of picking a position and sticking to it within sociology? i.e, I'm a quantitative based researcher who uses little or no theory. I'm a qualitative researcher who uses theory to help explain my research. I'm a theory driven researcher who analyses discursive power relations. And if it is a matter of picking a position, won't sociology become/is a subject with many, many internal divisions? And, if it is going to be divided, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

My short answer (on psych vs. sociology) was always individual vs. collective behaviour, with collective featuring in psychology via. socialization.

I dont fully agree with the notion that quantitative research is necesserily free from theory, the decisions involved in quantitative analysis are equally as subjective as those in qualitaitve - even if the end result is a definitive significance value, it is meaningless unless it emerges from a well rounded research question/hypothesis, and can form part of an understanding of underlying process. Quantitative analysis can be quite inductive, particularly with open coding, and certainly at the analysis stage. Since our measurement and cases (in sociology) dont lend themselves well to parametrics, much of the evaluation of significance comes in terms of construct validity, which is not too dissimilar to the logic of qualitative research (except for purist inductive approaches like grounded theory).

You could approach discourse analysis from either orientation depending on the extent of your sample or chosen analysis (i.e. do a content analysis on 500 court transcripts or conduct a frame analysis/series of interviews with key players and arrive at much the same conclusions).

I would consider it no different to any other disciplines in terms of the diversity of specialties, but very different in terms of the divisions between stated orientations (qual vs. quant), with larger diversity within the qualitative school. The exception would probably be more pronounced in America where the tradition of taking sides is a little more clear cut.

countrynosebag

i have no idea at all about the current subject matter(s) re all of the above
i do have a degree in cultural studies aswell as being a registered nurse with many years of experience
an accident has stopped me in my tracks - no masters for me
i am severely out-of date and now forgetful
i will not contribute but i am fascinated by my subject areas still and will enjoy other's contributions immensely
i do hope no-one feels particularly strongly about having an audience
perhaps the odd comment, question or simply thanks for the enjoyment will not be objected to by the present members
thank you
greytalkonly

countrynosebag

countrynosebag wrote: »

i have no idea at all about the current subject matter(s) re all of the above
i do have a degree in cultural studies aswell as being a registered nurse with many years of experience
an accident has stopped me in my tracks - no masters for me
i am severely out-of date and now forgetful
i will not contribute but i am fascinated by my subject areas still and will enjoy other's contributions immensely
i do hope no-one feels particularly strongly about having an audience
perhaps the odd comment, question or simply thanks for the enjoyment will not be objected to by the present members
thank you
greytalkonly

Not at all, countrynosebag. You're more than welcome, and encouraged, to take part in any discussion that you're interested in on this forum, and indeed on any other forum on Boards. If you'd only like to read then that's O.K., but please feel free to contribute wherever you like (having read the relevant charters (i.e. rules) in each forum). Welcome to Boards.

Torakx

Im curious about this topic.
Sociology is interesting to me as a layman and I had considered studying it.
Until i looked through a college book in a book shop and realised half of the book was about dates things happened and I got the feeling it was statistic lead.
I suppose, I am more interested in the philosophical or theory side of it and not so much focused on crunching numbers and remembering dates etc.

Is there an area of sociology that is focussed mostly on human behaviour?
For example, I am very interested in how people behave, especially in relation to media, their enviornment and as a group or individual.

It seems psychology does not cover this so much from my research so far.
And im wondering if sociology is where i should have been looking.
I know NLP is frowned on in the psychology forums.
How do sociologists feel about this method of interaction and its validity as a tool to help people or groups or even whole societies?

biko

Sociology deals a lot with big numbers of people or institutions, hence statistics is pretty essential.
The side most are interested in, including yourself it seems, is the social psychology side.

http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/f/socialpsych.htm
How Is Social Psychology Different From Other Disciplines?

It is important to understand how social psychology differs from other disciplines. Social psychology is often confused with folk wisdom, personality psychology and sociology. What makes social psychology different? Unlike folk wisdom, which relies on anecdotal observations and subjective interpretation, social psychology employs scientific methods and the empirical study of social phenomena.

While personality psychology focuses on individual traits, characteristics and thoughts, social psychology is focused on situations. Social psychologists are interested in the impact that the social environment and group interactions have on attitudes and behaviors.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between social psychology and sociology. While there are many similarities between the two, sociology tends to looks at social behavior and influences at a very broad-based level. Sociologists are interested in the institutions and cultures that influence how people behave. Psychologists instead focus on situational variables that affect social behavior. While psychology and sociology both study similar topics, they are looking at these topics from different perspectives.

Staedtler

biko wrote: »

Finally, it is important to distinguish between social psychology and sociology. While there are many similarities between the two, sociology tends to looks at social behavior and influences at a very broad-based level. Sociologists are interested in the institutions and cultures that influence how people behave. Psychologists instead focus on situational variables that affect social behavior. While psychology and sociology both study similar topics, they are looking at these topics from different perspectives.

Institutions and cultures are, by definition, situational variables.

I think the terms 'perspective' and 'subjective' are often confused and mistakenly interchanged.

Staedtler

biko wrote: »

I have a masters in Sociology and Psychology

I'm sure your parents are very proud.

biko wrote: »

Now I work in computers but still have use of my training as I dabble in HCI (Human Computer Interaction) and usability.

Are you not a little over-qualified for just mere dabbling? Surely, your qualifications entitle you to determine the future of mankind as you interact on Facebook, Twitter, Boards.ie, and the like.

What is HCI?

When I was growing up, the abbreviation HCI had a different interpretation. Instead of "Interaction" we used the word "Interface" - which basically meant a Keyboard.

Could you please explain what you meant by "Now I work in computers"?

I'm genuinely interested.

Staedtler, please quit with the passive-aggressive attitude; remarks such as "I'm sure your parents are very proud" and so on are not welcome. Personal remarks lower the quality of debate, which, given that this is a forum where high quality debate is encouraged, goes against the ethos of this forum. Thank you.

Staedtler

gvn wrote: »

Staedtler, please quit with the passive-aggressive attitude; remarks such as "I'm sure your parents are very proud" and so on are not welcome. Personal remarks lower the quality of debate, which, given that this is a forum where high quality debate is encouraged, goes against the ethos of this forum. Thank you.

That was quick.

It was a higher quality of debate I was attempting to address.

Thank you for not deleting my post.

Sivousplait

Certainly there are many schools of thought in sociology and I always thought it was better to challenge your lecturers. Usually they will give a reading list which would have generally subscribed to the kind of views they will have on a certain area. But I always found that lecturers were impressed (and my learning and debate was enhanced) by searching out texts not distributed by the lecturer. It always made for a much more informed debate as all sociologists WILL have different views on the reliability/validity of quantitative/qualititative research for example. This quant v qual debate was always the biggest thing i've come across in sociology. In a more general module you might have undertaken (for example...political sociology), your lecturer might think that qualitative research is more suitable to examine aspects of political sociology whereas another lecturer might find that quantitative research is much more substantial in answering research questions that have been posed by political sociologists - the works of Bourdieu on religion for example.

I think like any college discipline from business (which I studied my masters in) to sociology (which I did my undergrad in), never take anything at face value and challenge what your lecturer thinks. That is what they want you to do - challenge the established status quo and offer your own input to what has been done previously and leave your mark.

Hope this answers your point to some extent...not sure it is what you were getting at...but the idea of sociology is based on the fact that there are so many different views and schools of thought (like in any discipline) that it makes for interesting academic debate and scrutinising which is why I studied it.